( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff as O. S. No. 18 of 1960, in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against one Ramakrishtiah and Yeilappa and the plaintiffs brother Adapa Narayan.

( 2 ) THE material allegations in the plaint are that the plaintiff, third defendant adapa Hanumaiah and Ramalingam are brothers and members of a Hindu joint family till 1938, when Ramalingam separated from the rest of family. After the separation of Ramalingam, the family continued to be joint till July 1940 when there was a separation in mess between the brothers. The plaintiff s allegation is that thereafter separate khatas were opened in the names of the three brothers representing their branch of families and all the amounts paid or txpended by them used to be debited in their respective names. In 1942 the third defendant opened a shop in partnership with the 1st defendant under the name and style of Adapa Narayan Bombay Palakol cloth shop borrowingmonies from the family funds. The plaintiff and his brother Hanumaiah had also lent money to the said shop. The 1st defendant filed O. S. No. 23 of 1944, in the District Court, Secunderabad for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The 1st defendant then alleged that the third defendant bad entered into a partnership as manager of the joint family. The third de fendant denied this allegation in his written statement. A preliminary decree was passed on 19th April, 1944 against only the third defendant and an arbitrator was appointed to give an award on the profits and on the basis of the award made by the arbitrator, the Court passed the final decree on 8th October, 1951. The allegation of the plaintiff is that in the arbitration proceedings, none of the other members of the family including the plaintiff was re-presented. The plaintiff had lepresented in O. S. No. 23 of 1944,till the preliminary decree stage in his capacity as General Power of Attorney agent of the 1st defendant and not on behalf of the family. During the progress of the arbi tration proceedings, as differences arose between the three brothers, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition on 11th July, 1951, being O. S. No. 8/1 of 19951 the judgment in O. S. No. 8/1 of 1951, disclose that the joint family had entered into a partnership with the 1st defendant. In execution of the decree in O. S. 33 of 1944 the /st defendant had filed an application for attachment of properties and the plaintiff had filed a claim petition under Order 21 rule 58, Civil Proceedurc Code. As the 1st defendant did not press his execution petition, the objection petition was also closed as not pressed. The second defendant who had obtained a decree in O. S. No. 101 of 1953 on the filed of the then Subordinate Judge, Secunderabad, attached the decree obtained by the 2nd defendant against the third defendant and in his capacity of attach. Ing creditor filed an execution petition and attached House Nos. 169 and 170 at Marredpalli, Secunderabad, Houses Nos. 52, 54, 55 and 64 at Trimulgherry and Houses Nos. 71 to 76 at Mettuguda, Secunderabad for the recovery of the sum due under his decree. The plaintiff contended that the said attachment is illegal and unauthorised and also filed an objection petition on 16th January, 1957 under Order 21. rule 58, Civil Proceedure Code, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, he has filed the present suit under Order 21 rule 63, civil Procedure Code, praying that the order dated 5th July, 1960 in his claim petition be set aside and the attachment order dated 13tb July, 1958, be vacated. In the alternative he claimed that the attachment in respect of 1/3 (hare of the plaintiff be vacated. The order of the trial Court under Order 21, rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, was impugned as erroneous and it was alleged that it was liable to be set aside on the following grounds: (a) The decree in O. S. No. 23 of 1944, was against third defendant alone and was not